Value Added Tax (Place of Supply of Services: exceptions relating to supplies made to relevant business person) Order 2016 (S.I. 2016, No. 726) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: HM Treasury

Value Added Tax (Place of Supply of Services: exceptions relating to supplies made to relevant business person) Order 2016 (S.I. 2016, No. 726)

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts
Monday 12th September 2016

(7 years, 8 months ago)

General Committees
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey Portrait Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. You will be pleased to hear that I will not detain the Committee for long.

The order seeks to prevent avoidance of VAT by some insurance companies, as the Minister outlined. Such avoidance is broadly achieved by the insurance company locating outside EU VAT jurisdictions, so that any repair services can be provided to them VAT-free, as the present legislation provides that the place of supply is where the recipient is based. The provisions of the order seek to close that loophole and, as such, the Opposition support the Government in this legislation.

As the explanatory memorandum sets out, the order

“will require the service provider to charge VAT at the standard rate on the repairs they perform where the provider of the insurance cover for the goods is located outside the VAT territory of the EU”,

but where the supply of services would otherwise be treated as made in the United Kingdom and the services are effectively used and enjoyed outside the territories of the member states. The practical effect is that all UK repairs made under UK insurance contracts will be subject to VAT in the UK.

Generally speaking, the EU VAT system is designed to ensure that the tax is collected in the country where final consumption takes place. That is to ensure that UK VAT arises on consumption in the UK of goods and services. It also ensures that UK VAT is not charged in addition to other foreign VAT and taxes on consumption outside the UK. As the Minister highlighted, it appears that some insurance companies have been exploiting the system to avoid VAT on the provision of repair services specifically. Insurance companies have been setting up offshore so that such services can be supplied to them VAT-free.

The order creates an exception to the current VAT rules based on a provision in the EU principal VAT directive that permits member states to regard the place of supply as being where the services are “effectively used and enjoyed”, thereby ensuring that when the repair is undertaken in the UK, the tax is due in the UK, as the service is effectively used and enjoyed there, regardless of the involvement of offshore entities.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation broadly agrees with the principle that the Government have put forward, but it has some technical concerns about the definitions used in the order. It is specifically concerned about the lack of a clear definition or guidance on the interpretation of “use” and “enjoyment”, which could leave the legislation open to dispute, creating uncertainty for taxpayers and the authorities. As far as I am aware, the terms “use” and “enjoyment” are not defined in the EU principal VAT directive or in UK legislation. The Chartered Institute of Taxation informs me that it has raised the issue directly with HMRC and has suggested that ideally there should be a definition in the legislation and, at the very least, clear guidance on how the terms are to be interpreted.

The final HMRC guidance has not been published yet, but the Chartered Institute of Taxation has been privy to a draft, and it told me that the guidance still does not explain how the terms “use” and “enjoyment” are to be interpreted. Perhaps the Minister could use this opportunity to provide clarification as to whether the Government will define the terms “use” and “enjoyment” in legislation. We certainly would not want any lack of clarification to provide a further loophole for insurers to avoid VAT.

The order was announced in the summer 2015 Budget. According to the corresponding policy costings, I understand that it is expected to save the Exchequer £5 million a year, which is fantastic. However, although we support the order, the money is minor when compared with the Treasury’s estimates of a tax gap of around £35 billion. The latest available figures for the VAT gap was £13.5 billion for 2014-15. That is 10.8% of the estimated net VAT total theoretical liability.

None Portrait The Chair
- Hansard -

Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady did not deal with the wider question of VAT and the tax gap, and confined her remarks to the order that we are debating.

Rebecca Long Bailey Portrait Rebecca Long Bailey
- Hansard - -

Thank you, Mr Gapes. I was just trying to extract a little bit more information from the Minister. You will appreciate that we rarely have opportunities to do that.

None Portrait The Chair
- Hansard -

Order. Please confine your remarks to the terms of the order.

Rebecca Long Bailey Portrait Rebecca Long Bailey
- Hansard - -

I apologise. To conclude my remarks on the order, the Opposition support the provisions introduced by the order to address VAT avoidance by insurance companies located offshore. However, I hope the Minister can address some of the points I have raised and, in particular, the concerns of the Chartered Institute of Taxation.